Of the 5099 people surveyed between May and July this year, 47% weren’t able to distinguish with certainty between legal and illegal services, while only 16% actually admitted to accessing unlicensed content, and only 8% said they relied on illegal sources of music.

When those infringers were asked why they went to unlicensed content sources instead of legitimate sites or services, the most common responses were that the illegal sites were free, convenient and/or quick. Asked what would convince them to stop accessing illegal content, the three most common answers were that they would do so if legal services were cheaper and had all the content they wanted, and if it was clearer what was legal and what was not.

Malt points out that there are several legal services, most of which are inexpensive, including ad-funded streaming services which give listeners access to thousands of tracks for free. ("Inexpensive" is, of course, relative. Ofcom's study shows that music retailers and streaming services would convert a majority of casual infringers by cutting prices 50-70%. resulting in 2-3x the number of purchases.)

Of course, Malt's speaking about music services in the western world. Worldwide, the situation isn't nearly as seamless. And TV/motion pictures are a completely different situation. While there are several services available, the content is much more fractured and more expensive. Most streaming services (Netflix, Amazon, Hulu) suffer from major studios' unwillingness to license their output at reasonable rates, and pricing on digital products isn't all that competitive.

But as for music services in the US, it's mostly good news, even if it took much longer than it needed to get to this point. Still, Malt then goes on to point out an area where these services disappoint, often through no fault of their own:

The missing content point is a stronger argument, providing file-sharers relying on it really are trying to access tracks that artists or labels have failed to make available through legit routes. And this is something the music business really ought to have solved by 2012.

AC/DC joined the digital party just within the past couple of weeks and a handful of other holdouts have chosen to stay CD-only. The list of holdouts for streaming services is much, much longer, however. But while these holdouts may be giving themselves a slight sales boost, they're doing so at the expense of their own industry.

[W]hile artists perhaps should have the power to control where their music is distributed, many of the Spotify resisters are acts who have made their millions already, and really should be thinking about the good of the wider music community. Because every artist shunning the streaming services is providing ammunition to the aforementioned self-confessed infringers.

The world has moved on, music consumption has changed, and the Napster generation are now at an age where they should be becoming the music industry’s biggest customers, but that’s not going to happen if the legit services they are embracing are lacking catalogue.

Here's where these artists make one of the worst assumptions -- that withholding their music from streaming services will result in a corresponding boost in sales. While there may be a few fans who opt to purchase rather than do without, a majority will find other options, none of which involve purchasing the album.

[A]n increasing number of people, when then can’t find an album on their streaming service of choice, will not just fall in line and go buy the record from the three shops that the artist or label has dictated can sell their music.

When I can’t find ‘Red’ by Taylor Swift on Spotify, I don’t think, “Gosh darn it, I’ll just have to go and buy it from Papa John’s pizza parlour“. I think, “Well fuck it, I’ll just not listen to it then, cos I’ve listened to enough sixteen track pop albums lately to know that a good chunk of it will not be very good. Also, Ed Sheeran co-wrote one of the tracks on it”. Meanwhile those others not willing to take the financial risk of being lumbered with a handful of filler tracks will Google ‘Red for free’ and download it off someone else’s hard drive for nothing.

So, while some artists may despise the Spotifys and Pandoras of the world, withholding their music cedes ground to infringers and other artists. Even if the bump in sales is bigger at this point in time, that won't always be the case. The law of diminishing returns is going to kick in as a new generation of music fans raised on always-on internet and streaming services is just going to bypass artists that aren't available on the services they use.

He then goes deeper into the numbers, looking at what it takes to convince infringers to utilize legitimate services -- and it's here that the involved industries continue to shoot themselves in the wallet. Yes, there are some people who are never going to use legitimate means and will never pay for music, movies, etc. So, why spend so much time worrying about something you can't fix?

OK, some of the infringers who complained about being confused may be taking the piss again. After all, most people finding content online via a search engine with ‘pirate’ in its name know there’s a very high chance the content they download isn’t legal, even if they plead ignorance. So education probably won’t work with this group. Then again, these are also the people who know how to hide their file-sharing from the three-strikes police, and to circumvent the web-blocks put up in front of The Pirate Bay, so there’s probably not much you can do about them.

But remember, this was only 8% of those surveyed, so I say fuck em. Let’s focus on the 47% who implied that they want to do the right thing, but find the whole thing too confusing. Let’s stop handing over cash to lawyers and technology whizzes who want to go after the 8% and focus on doing some decent education with everyone else. Because if OfCom’s research tells us anything, it’s that the music industry’s current educational initiatives, including the Music Matters programme, which expanded into the US this week, just aren’t working in the slightest.

If you've got approximately 92% of the population to work with, why on earth would you spend your time trying to legislate, sue or otherwise inconvenience the other 8%? The thought process seems to be that only 0% piracy is acceptable and that accepting less is ceding the battle. Taking a hardline against file-sharing will only alienate potential customers. File sharing isn't limited to an "unlawful" fringe. A full 2/3rds of the study's respondents admitted to infringing activity, but if the content industries insist on treating customers as thieves, they're just going to end up with fewer and fewer customers.

The half-assed "educational" programs are a joke as well, with most of the effort going into telling people how file sharing is wrong, rather than playing up the advantages of legitimate services (please -- no more of the "your illegal download is probably a virus" ridiculousness). Or better yet, move that time, money and energy into convincing rights holders to work with existing services to make them better, by adding more content, reducing idiotic, arbitrary restrictions that make no sense with digital goods and negotiating rates that work for everyone involved.

Malt has a couple of excellent points on how to do education right. As he says, the Music Matters campaign is a farce. It fails to do anything resembling "education," preferring to use guilt as negative reinforcement rather than give the undecided a reason to choose legitimate services. Not only that, but the Music Matters mark isn't even displayed by the two largest music services (iTunes and Spotify).

I suppose Music Matters is better that the American record industry wheeling out millionaire pop stars to complain about how file-sharing is depriving them of record sales, but it still feels decidedly mediocre for an industry that, when it comes to selling artists and albums, is actually pretty good at engaging and enthusing consumers. It’s easy for me to sit here and criticise, and I don’t claim to have the answers. But for a start, perhaps instead of forcing ISPs to send out angry letters to those consumers mistakenly downloading unlicensed music files, the labels could start sending thank you letters to those who inadvertently use a legal store.

There's an idea. Thanking your customers for purchasing from you rather than taking alternate routes to the same content. It would make for some great PR and maybe start altering the general image of the average record exec as a grouchy, out-of-touch robber baron with dollar signs for eyes, surrounded by lawyers and starving musicians.

Education can be a good idea, but it needs to be handled with a much defter touch than any of the content industries seem able to manage. Think more carrot, less stick. And try to let bygones be bygones. You can't keep bemoaning the post-Napster climate when you've got a whole new generation of potential customers who are accustomed to streaming services, low prices and instant access across multiple devices. Like it or not, streaming services and single track sales are here to stay. Ad-supported apps may not bring in great money, but that's the new reality. There's no going back, no matter how much legislation you throw at the internet. A continued preference for enforcement over engagement is only going to make things worse.

It would be nice

...if they stopped harassing paying customers.

I guess the music industry isn't as bad as the movie industry, but personally I'm completely fed up with buying a DVD or a movie ticket and being subjected to annoying "features" and propaganda about how bad piracy is - "Hello! Paying customer here! How about making your product less annoying than the pirate version for me ?".

Re:

I have rarely heard any music in the last 10 years worth purchasing, and even then I don't. I tend to listen to the radio for music when I am in my car, otherwise, I listen to my music collection which I legally ripped of the CD's I own. Most of the music I listen to was made in the 80's.

Re: Re:

I listen to music on the car radio, constantly change stations, and once in a while listen running. For the most part music is just noise to me with the current pop stars. I think other people are beginning to see it in the same way.

If it were always possible to find purchaseable DRM-free content, I would ALWAYS purchase it. It's that simple

Other than the original days of Napster, I have since only ever resorted to downloading content when I find it impossible to buy a reasonable working copy of it either from the source or from their distributors, and even then only when it's something I really care to see or hear badly enough to download it.

Being unable to purchase media content despite my best efforts happens far too often due to zone restrictions, purchase windows, DRM, ecommerce and shopping cart fuckups and complete buttheadedness on the part of the industry.

It's almost ALWAYS possible to find downloadable content. If it were always possible to find purchaseable DRM-free content, I would ALWAYS purchase it. It's that simple.

47% claim the don't know what is illegal and legal and the other 53% are deluded into thinking they know.

Just because something has pirate in the keywords certainly doesn't mean it's illegal. It probably means it's illegal *somewhere*, but thats not a particularly big help.

If I'm searching for something with pirate in the name because I'm too lazy to rip my vinyl myself, is it illegal? What if the version I download ends up being an unreleased bootleg live version of a song I already own? Illegal? What if I bought the CD and lost it?
What if I have paid the music levy tax in my country?

Loaded with DRM? You got to be kidding me that it's worth money in that form. Authorizing server goes down, like it has for Microsoft, Walmart, and Yahoo? How long till the next one goes down turning dollars you spent into nothing?

No since in mentioning that the UAC in Windows often gives problems with connecting to authorize content.

That's just too many hoops to jump through for a legal song priced way, way, out of realism.

There's no guarentee when you buy a DRM loaded song it's going to work on your setup. There are tons of this on the net. Ever try to get a refund on it? Ain't gonna happen.

Re: Re:

A lot of music does still have DRM in it, but Apple told the RIAA to go screw themselves and went DRM free not that long ago. However, if you want to tell iTunes to go screw itself (as I have a long time ago) you're still stuck with DRMed alternatives or piracy (but I don't do ether, F**k the RIAA)

Re: They're not using Vinegar

Vinegar, I think they are shooting napalm all over the place and just assuming that they got the flies while ignoring the fact they just burnt down their building and all the other collateral damage.

Then I'm sure they gave themselves a raise, while screwing the musicians out of more money so they can rebuild their building to start the process again. All while patting themselves on the back claiming "Success" no less.

Re: They're not using Vinegar

Wow, you completely missed it.

You are looking at the bowls several hours later. The first bowl probably did attract the most flies, but the content was not dangerous, so the flies came in, consumed and left. They can and will return.

The second bowl has bad food in it. It gives them indegestion, and in some cases, fatal. This is why you will find some dead flies here. Most flies will not return here, unless there is no other choice.

The third bowl has plenty of dead flies, but, these are flies who will never sample from any of your bowls again. These flies will not return, for they are all dead.

Now, you say bowl three is the winner, but, if all you do is put out bowl 3, you will loose in the long run, because once all the consumers of your content have consumed once, they will never do so again, and you will go broke.

Yeah, Bowl 1 is the winner here, because they will be able to return time and time again, consuming your content, and paying you in kind.

Bowl 2 is the second, as they will consume the content, but only if they absolutely must, and even then, it doesn't sit quite right. Some will sample once, and never again.

Bowl 3 is the clear looser. Once sampled, you will never get a repeat customer. Great long-term business decision.

Of course, I believe your post was satirical in nature, and for that, Kudos. If, for some insane reason, you are being serious, then you need to take an economics class. Stat.

Re: ISP Letters

Well, they actually had that thought in Denmark. First they insisted that a 3-strike plan is a very good idea. When EU made it hard to implement legally, they started Pleading for a "letter-model" where infringers were delivered a letter telling them that illegal downloading is illegal and what punishment they could find themself facing ("education"). In the end they fought for a modified letter-model with a far more positive message with some information, but still a warning.

After ACTA was voted down in the primary committees in EU, a plan the danish politicians had worked on for years politically, was revealed with almost nothing in the way of contacting users about illegal activities. The politicians were clear about the shutdown of ACTA being the biggest reason for why it ended that way (costs were probably the second biggest reason). The record companies and publishers almost exploded in rage and called the politicians liars etc. The artists were pretty happy about the deal. In the end we did not get a reduction in the IP-protection, but it was explicitly said by politicians from both sides of the isle that the companies had to reinvent themself or die. Shortly before we had a ruling in Supreme court making previous assumptions about the size of damages "unreasonable".

On that note, we are still having one of the worlds most restrictive laws on IP, seeing one political party being overtly pro copyright expansion and a very positive song about ACTA and the ISP-blocking that worked for child porn, being used in copyright-cases, "illegal" medicine, online gambling and probably to include far more in the future. Also, soft DPI, meaning non-human packet inspection, is being seen cautiously as a positive step against piracy (probably because most IT-politicians have absolutely no clue about the technology apart from what they read from lobbyists).

1985: Yeah, did you hear "X"'s latest song? Yep, got it. Paid $16, but this song is awesome! No, didn't have enough for "Y"'s CD. Hey, copy it, and I'll give you mine.

1995: Bro, check this site out, napster.com. It's a buffet of free music. No shit, now we can go see "X" in concert. Still shocked they're still around. The drummer's what, 1000 now? Yeah, still, front row seats! Don't forget the weed.

2005: Fuck, man! I just got sued! Think the RIAA's all up in my face because I grabbed a few files. Fuck them, man. I swear, I'm done with this shit. All those years buying and I get burned for a few songs. Assholes!

2012: We are the RIAA. In our pockets, we have the US Congress, FBI, NSA, ICE, and our friends, the MPAA, are all about to ruin your lives by taking away internet access because you won't buy. No, those blurays you have don't count, and neither do those concert tickets. You're skipping commercials on TV, which our advertisers (no you, consumer who buys these products so there is an endorsement, we're too stupid to figure this out), and you keep demanding everything be free.

We're tired of it. We, as middlemen, want our artist to be paid shit and you to pay for it all so we can buy another yacht. How hard is this to figure out.

Now, say goodbye to your internet because you won't buy a song that costs more money, per track, than you can buy at Walmart.

2013: In today's news, Chris Dodd has been arrested for allegedly bribing US Congressmen, price fixing the US market, and free trade violations throughout the world. Cary Sherman was unavailable for comment as he was also arrested, crying like a baby.

Ah, yes, the old "ignore crime" argument.

It's very generous of you to let A steal from B. No skin off your nose. Perhaps B can return the favor sometime and let A steal from you.

Just reverse your notion: Tell the 92% it's perfectly okay to steal to someone else's work-product! Enjoy! If you aren't going to worry about the morality of that bunch, why worry about the rest? -- You know, you're loony idealists who can't see that clear principles must be laid down for everyone to follow. They ain't very complex nor difficutl to follow. -- Relevant principle here is: don't take what doesn't belong to you.

I hope you run into one of those 8% who's just a little more ruthless (and cunning, like a lawyer or other sharper) and he takes everything you have, then. That'd be justice.

Re: Re: Re: Ah, yes, the old "ignore crime" argument.

Re: Ah, yes, the old "ignore crime" argument.

Seems to me that any businessman would say "I don't care about moral arguments, where's the Return On Investment ?", and the straight answer is that it's with getting the 92% to spend (more), not throwing money away trying to sue the 8%.

Re: Ah, yes, the old "ignore crime" argument.

Infringement is a civil issue. So while being illegal it is NOT a crime per se, at least not on the level you make it out to be.

"It's very generous of you to let A steal from B. No skin off your nose. Perhaps B can return the favor sometime and let A steal from you."

Well, first off no one on this site is letting A steal from B. Secondly, no theft is taking place. However copies are being produced, so copyright is being infringed upon. There's a huge difference between infringement and theft. You might want to try and understand what the difference is sometime. Thirdly, what is being stated by the person who did the study is that 8% of people aren't going to buy/pay for a product. Period. So it makes no fiscal sense to focus on trying to get that 8% to behave/pay up/stop it. No sane business person would spend millions for a minor handful of people causing them problems. But EVERY sane business person would spend millions finding ways to get the other 92% to keep on spending (and thus making back those millions that were spent on them and then some).

And oh yeah, Techdirt has a policy that basically says, "Here are our articles. Knock yourselves out if you want to lift them entirely, no skin off our back. We KNOW how to monetize our content effectively, so we'll be able to keep running. Anyway, have at it, you bunch of freetards. :P"

"Just reverse your notion: Tell the 92% it's perfectly okay to steal to someone else's work-product! Enjoy! If you aren't going to worry about the morality of that bunch, why worry about the rest?"

Except, again, Mike isn't saying that. In fact, Mike and others have said infringement is illegal and they don't condone it. However, they understand it takes place and there's not much that can effectively be done to stop it, so as such it's more effort to bitch about it then to ignore it. And since the problem won't go away, crying about it will never reasonably get you anywhere you want to go. So just move on. As for that 92%, they're the people who are buying/paying for things. So why are you trying to paint them as thieves?

"You know, you're loony idealists who can't see that clear principles must be laid down for everyone to follow."

Wouldn't it be better said that the people who are trying to force principles for everyone else to follow the loony idealists? Or better said, the loonies period. Because they're trying to force others to conform to their beliefs/ideals and all that jazz. And for those who don't, "TO THE GULAGS WITH THEM!" Am I right? That's basically what you're advocating. You're a real kneebiter, you know that?

"They ain't very complex nor difficutl to follow."

But apparently the rules of grammar and syntax are... for you. Sigh. I'd worry more about education reform and ensuring we aren't producing/passing more idiots to spread further idiocy onto the planet before I worry about how NOT harmful piracy actually is. (Because you know, ACTUAL studies have been done that show no real harm can be quantified. Meaning, in simplest terms, there's no verifiable harm being done.)

"Relevant principle here is: don't take what doesn't belong to you."

The theory of relativity doesn't belong to me. But I'm free to "take" it and use it as needed. That's as simple an example as I can give. As for taking, none goes on. How hard is this for you to understand? You go on about others not getting things, yet the simplest notion and most important one distinguishing how copyright infringement in no way actually involves the taking of anyone's work or product and you still don't get it.

"I hope you run into one of those 8% who's just a little more ruthless (and cunning, like a lawyer or other sharper) and he takes everything you have, then."

Ah yes, that's right. Harp on about morality and all that nonsense and then say what is essentially, "I hope you fucking get stabbed!" Your just the definition of justice/morality there, aren't you? [he ask rhetorically, knowing already that you very much aren't]

"That'd be justice."

No, it wouldn't. Because no one, especially not those writing for this site, are advocating for anything you seem to be under the impression that they're advocating for, nor are they condoning anything you seem to think they are.

Here's a quote for you, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." Note, I didn't say that originally, by your definition of theft and all that though, my use of it is tantamount to outright theft. Or am I, and by default YOU, wrong? And there are plenty of ways in which others can use words, songs, pictures, etc of others and NOT be stealing them? [Again, that's rhetorical. The answer is a most definite "yes". And you're a fucking idiot.]

Re: Ah, yes, the old "ignore crime" argument.

The 92% doesn't bother or care enough, but continue treating them like thieves and pirates when they're clearly not doing it and you'll see that number drop like a stone in water.

"Ain't very complex nor difficutl" to follow? Look, out_of_the_asscrack, when you can explain how even Viacom can't tell what files it uploaded to YouTube and whether they're infringing, you can come back and tell us how the laws ain't very complex nor [sic] difficutl. Your principles are clear as mud aside from the fact that you're only here to vandalise.

Re: Ah, yes, the old "ignore crime" argument.

Re: Ah, yes, the old "ignore crime" argument.

No, not ignore the crime--just focus on how much shrink is economically, logistically, and socially reasonable to recover. Retail loses about $30 billion annually to outright theft--be it by employee or shoplifter. You don't see the retail sector crying to congress to pass laws that let them strip search everyone, do you? No, they take what measures they can that are the least onerous to their paying customers to help mitigate the issue (cameras, security guards, anti-theft devices on high dollar easily stolen merchandise, and locked display cases).

what a waste of time it is doing any studies of this sort. everyone knows the results are true but those in power in government and in the industries debunk and/or ignore them. the reason being it isn't, never has been and never will be about money for the artists. it is only about money for the studios and the execs and about gaining, then trying to keep control of the internet, the best media distribution system on the entire planet. the biggest drawback is that even the politicians know this is true but refuse to acknowledge it and do anything to change the way the entertainment industries want to go, simply because it would mean reducing the payments they get for backing those industries. as usual, the fact that the industries are where they are because of piracy and progress that happened up til now means nothing as long as progress can be thwarted now!

Sadly, the longer they wait to change their business model and bring what the customers want to the customers, the harder time they're going to have as more people start to think that pirating is a legitimate alternative to paying.

ootb gives in the title of his post what to do with it...ignore it. Just hit the report button and move on. He's already said he doesn't read the responses and that's why you don't get an answer to your posts.

If it isn't on pandora I probably won't find it

"Here's where these artists make one of the worst assumptions -- that withholding their music from streaming services will result in a corresponding boost in sales. "

The vast majority of music that I like I find on pandora, and I buy most of it from Amazon based on the link on Pandora. For most music that fits my taste, if it isn't on Pandora I will probably never know it exists.

Patents & Copyrights

"Since intellectual property rights cannot be exercised in perpetuity, the question of their time limit is an enormously complex issue. . . . In the case of copyrights, the most rational solution is Great Britain’s Copyright Act of 1911, which established the copyright of books, paintings, movies, etc. for the lifetime of the author and fifty years thereafter...." (“Patents and Copyrights,”
_Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_; Ayn Rand)

We ought be more concerned with the common practice of patenting genes.

"It is important to note ... that a discovery cannot be patented, only an invention. A scientific or philosophical discovery, which identifies a law of nature, a principle or a fact of reality not previously known, cannot be the exclusive property of the discoverer because: (a) he did not create it, and (b) if he cares to make his discovery public, claiming it to be true, he cannot demand that men continue to pursue or practice falsehoods except by his permission. He can copyright the book in which he presents his discovery and he can demand that his authorship of the discovery be acknowledged, that no other man appropriate or plagiarize the credit for it—but he cannot copyright theoretical knowledge. Patents and copyrights pertain only to the practical application of knowledge, to the ***___creation of a specific object___*** which did not exist in nature—an object which, in the case of patents, may never have existed without its particular originator; and in the case of copyrights, would never have existed" (Ibid).

Robber barons

It would make for some great PR and maybe start altering the general image of the average record exec as a grouchy, out-of-touch robber baron with dollar signs for eyes, surrounded by lawyers and starving musicians.

But the average record exec is a grouchy, out-of-touch robber baron with dollar signs for eyes, surrounded by lawyers and starving musicians!

Vinegar does attract a KIND of fly.

Once one understands that fruit flies eat yeast and yeast make alcohol and alcohol + air is food for bacteria that results in vinegar - its no wonder vinegar attracts fruit flies - the flies think it indicates food and are therefore attracted to it.

Kind of like how people see Sony or Disney and think "entertainment". If there is entertainment - such is an accident and not central to the primary purpose of what Sony/Disney does. Both wish to "eat" something called "money" and will do whatever it takes to get that Money Meal. Right now it is trying to convince lawmakers to do things to preserve their old harvested content for later consumption.

And besides - vinegar keeps longer than say low concentration alcohol or yeast/low gravity sugarwater so betting on the long term preservative of old content makes sense.

Education only works with unalienated people

If you're such a moron to expand copyright to whenever, you shouldn't be surprised people don't honour it. To quote:

"And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the words of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living." -- Thomas Babington Macaulay, Speechs to House of Commons
on 5 Feb. 1841 Opposing Proposed Life + 60 Year Copyright Term

Before you try to "educate" people to adhere to your mad money-making scheme that is this copyright with durations above lifetimes, fix it. No copyright for the Dead. Fuck these Zombies!

Re: Education only works with unalienated people

The only reason to have any copyright after death is because of the death taxes that now exist on an estate. Most times, the revenue services in question will make a deal with the heirs of said estate for a cut of the revenue. End the death tax, and copyright can expire at the end of its holder's life.